Quote
Woz
I'm sure 2014 will bring a new Stones album.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
They really have no excuses, so the only thing that makes any sense is what many have been saying around here for a long time (and that I foolishly chose to ignore) and that is that Mick and Keith really can't stand working together on a one on one basis anymore. What else could it be? They are artistically drained? Too lazy? Shame on them if it's because they are simply too lazy!

Actually the blame can go to Stones fans themselves--at least the casual fans with their "oldies only" mentality that make up the bulk of their concert-going audience:

“It would be nice to have a new album, but people don’t like the new album when you play it on stage,” Jagger told USA Today. “They glumly look at you. ‘OK, it will be over in a minute.’ It’s not a good excuse, but it’s the truth and has to be said.”

Further details at: [ultimateclassicrock.com]

The Stones have ended up with the audience they deserve, If that audience consists largely (as Jagger seems to suggest) of people who are widely ignorant of the music of a band who have somehow managed to sell about 250 million records, then its their 'fault' for making their shows so exclusive financially and targeting a certain customer demographic. This manifests itself in imaginative playlists over the last decade - something that wasnt the case even as late as the 90s when they were playing stadium shows which included a wide variety of deep album cuts and songs theyd dug out of the back catalogue as well as a smattering of big hits.

All you need to know regarding the way the Stones do their business is the fact that when you go to a Stones concert, you can buy dozens of variants of Stones t-shirts, you can buy bobble headed dolls, luminous pins and any other piece of overpriced, tacky kitsch that happens to have a tongue on it - but you cant buy a Rolling Stones CD.

Good points, but consider this: What is better, to feed hundreds of hungry people, or hundreds of thousands of hungry people? There is your answer. It is selfish for us (me included) that number in the hundreds to think we are more special than those that number in the hundreds of thousands no matter how much merchandise we have purchased or how many concerts we have attended. I am sorry, Gazza but you have always come across to me as some kind of an elitist.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
They really have no excuses, so the only thing that makes any sense is what many have been saying around here for a long time (and that I foolishly chose to ignore) and that is that Mick and Keith really can't stand working together on a one on one basis anymore. What else could it be? They are artistically drained? Too lazy? Shame on them if it's because they are simply too lazy!

Actually the blame can go to Stones fans themselves--at least the casual fans with their "oldies only" mentality that make up the bulk of their concert-going audience:

“It would be nice to have a new album, but people don’t like the new album when you play it on stage,” Jagger told USA Today. “They glumly look at you. ‘OK, it will be over in a minute.’ It’s not a good excuse, but it’s the truth and has to be said.”

Further details at: [ultimateclassicrock.com]

The Stones have ended up with the audience they deserve, If that audience consists largely (as Jagger seems to suggest) of people who are widely ignorant of the music of a band who have somehow managed to sell about 250 million records, then its their 'fault' for making their shows so exclusive financially and targeting a certain customer demographic. This manifests itself in imaginative playlists over the last decade - something that wasnt the case even as late as the 90s when they were playing stadium shows which included a wide variety of deep album cuts and songs theyd dug out of the back catalogue as well as a smattering of big hits.

All you need to know regarding the way the Stones do their business is the fact that when you go to a Stones concert, you can buy dozens of variants of Stones t-shirts, you can buy bobble headed dolls, luminous pins and any other piece of overpriced, tacky kitsch that happens to have a tongue on it - but you cant buy a Rolling Stones CD.

Quote
BlackHat

Quote
Woz
I'm sure 2014 will bring a new Stones album.

Another hits package with two new tracks? Or a special addition Grrr with two different new tracks?

Quote
Gazza
...Aiming for that demographic makes for an ageing fanbase which doesnt get replaced. Which is why on the occasions when they HAVE made their shows affordable to a younger audience (eg Isle of Wight 2007, Copacabana 2006, Glastonbury 2013) the audience energy compared to that at a standard Stones show has been like night and day.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
They really have no excuses, so the only thing that makes any sense is what many have been saying around here for a long time (and that I foolishly chose to ignore) and that is that Mick and Keith really can't stand working together on a one on one basis anymore. What else could it be? They are artistically drained? Too lazy? Shame on them if it's because they are simply too lazy!

Actually the blame can go to Stones fans themselves--at least the casual fans with their "oldies only" mentality that make up the bulk of their concert-going audience:

“It would be nice to have a new album, but people don’t like the new album when you play it on stage,” Jagger told USA Today. “They glumly look at you. ‘OK, it will be over in a minute.’ It’s not a good excuse, but it’s the truth and has to be said.”

Further details at: [ultimateclassicrock.com]

The Stones have ended up with the audience they deserve, If that audience consists largely (as Jagger seems to suggest) of people who are widely ignorant of the music of a band who have somehow managed to sell about 250 million records, then its their 'fault' for making their shows so exclusive financially and targeting a certain customer demographic. This manifests itself in imaginative playlists over the last decade - something that wasnt the case even as late as the 90s when they were playing stadium shows which included a wide variety of deep album cuts and songs theyd dug out of the back catalogue as well as a smattering of big hits.

All you need to know regarding the way the Stones do their business is the fact that when you go to a Stones concert, you can buy dozens of variants of Stones t-shirts, you can buy bobble headed dolls, luminous pins and any other piece of overpriced, tacky kitsch that happens to have a tongue on it - but you cant buy a Rolling Stones CD.

Good points, but consider this: What is better, to feed hundreds of hungry people, or hundreds of thousands of hungry people? There is your answer. It is selfish for us (me included) that number in the hundreds to think we are more special than those that number in the hundreds of thousands no matter how much merchandise we have purchased or how many concerts we have attended. I am sorry, Gazza but you have always come across to me as some kind of an elitist.

A reasonable assumption, if not quite accurate. My opinion is that after a 50 year career the Stones - like any act - have long ago earned the right to play whatever the hell they want on a concert stage. Everyone by now has had a chance to see them in concert (geographically anyway, if not financially). Its not much to ask of an audience that if they go and see a band and enjoy the performance, that they then take that pleasure a bit further and dig a bit deeper into their back catalogue. Or buy whatever album theyre touring behind (if there is one). These days you dont even have to buy an artist's music to be familiar with it - there are numerous streaming sites such as spotify and filesharing for free is commonplace.

I personally think it devalues the Stones as a band that they feel they have to pander to what they see is a target audience who can't' - and more importantly won't - make any effort at all to appreciate their music beyond the confines of a greatest hits album. I don't see that level of pandering by the vast majority of their contemporaries. The band dont allow themselves to grow creatively by doing this and the audience they're targetting is even more stagnated. Its a huge catalogue of music and its unreasonable to expect a large audience to get the level of appreciation for it that people who frequent message boards like this have - which is why I think the extreme arguments for playing really obscure stuff like long lost b-sides and the like are unrealistic - but the Stones have become so conditioned to playing it safe that theyve actually managed to convince a lot of people (including on here) that if they deviated from the norm people would get bored or walk out. Its absolute revisionist bollocks. Then again, we're talking about a band whose lead singer almost apologetically introduced a song from 'Sticky Fingers' on the Bigger Bang tour (I think it was 'Sway') as 'an obscurity'. An 'obscurity' from what is one of their three best selling (and most acclaimed) studio albums which happened to sell about five million copies!

They dont even have to drop a chunk of greatest hits to make a show more interesting either. Just playing a few different ones and rotating a few in and out of the show would be sufficient!

If preferring to be part of an audience that happens to have a basic grasp of the band's music makes me an elitist, then I'll proudly hold my hand up. The only 'elitism' at Stones concerts in the 21st century however is based on the depth of the average audience member's wallet, unfortunately. Aiming for that demographic makes for an ageing fanbase which doesnt get replaced. Which is why on the occasions when they HAVE made their shows affordable to a younger audience (eg Isle of Wight 2007, Copacabana 2006, Glastonbury 2013) the audience energy compared to that at a standard Stones show has been like night and day.

Quote
Spud

Quote
Gazza
...Aiming for that demographic makes for an ageing fanbase which doesnt get replaced. Which is why on the occasions when they HAVE made their shows affordable to a younger audience (eg Isle of Wight 2007, Copacabana 2006, Glastonbury 2013) the audience energy compared to that at a standard Stones show has been like night and day.

It's a little sad that they don't seem to have picked up on that and built on it.

Quote
Spud

Quote
Gazza
...Aiming for that demographic makes for an ageing fanbase which doesnt get replaced. Which is why on the occasions when they HAVE made their shows affordable to a younger audience (eg Isle of Wight 2007, Copacabana 2006, Glastonbury 2013) the audience energy compared to that at a standard Stones show has been like night and day.

It's a little sad that they don't seem to have picked up on that and built on it.

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
Spud

Quote
Gazza
...Aiming for that demographic makes for an ageing fanbase which doesnt get replaced. Which is why on the occasions when they HAVE made their shows affordable to a younger audience (eg Isle of Wight 2007, Copacabana 2006, Glastonbury 2013) the audience energy compared to that at a standard Stones show has been like night and day.

It's a little sad that they don't seem to have picked up on that and built on it.

I don't know that it's necessarily a "younger" thing (especially given that the people I know who were at Copacabana and Glasto are my age!). Cheaper or free shows by any big band are always high energy because it's a different dynamic, people are more relaxed and not concerned about getting their money's worth, etc., just there to have a good time. They don't even have to be a huge fan of the band, it's just the opportunity for a big night out. Which is great--there was the same sort of dynamic at Wimbledon the year they played on the middle Sunday and let the riff raff (in the eyes of many) in--lots of noisy enthusiasm etc. But it was nothing to do with age, and although I agree these sort of shows make it more possible for younger people with less money to attend, the same applies to older people with less money.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Excellent comments. Now, this is the kind of discussion I enjoy.

I agree with most everything you have said here, but I think you might consider giving the Stones "target audience" a little more credit. For example: I know some "high roller" Stones fans that travel the world to see them and know more than I could ever know about the band. They fly "under the radar" and have no desire to exchange opinions about their favorite band on forums such as this. They are also not the most vocal people in the world at concerts, but they love their Stones.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

As far as the Stones "playing it safe" I am in total agreement with you. Mick's greatest fear is that his audience is going to fall asleep on him. His goal is to "kill" the audience every time out. Filling the shows with the "Blockbusters" is a proven model for accomplishing that goal.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
To his credit he does like to mix in a few rarities for us hardcore types.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
Out Of Control was definitely for us, so was 2000 Light Years From Home.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I thought he looked very uncomfortable doing Out Of Control. I think they only did it once. He may have felt he was losing the audience. I loved it, but thought he could have put more into it (expression wise) like he did on the Bridges tour.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

I think what they did in this past tour (considering it was their 50th anniversary tour) was OK. Many new fans got to see them perform their greatest hits for the first time. Now, it's time to give us and the new fans some new music. It's time to move on and create some new "Blockbusters". Will it happen? I honestly don't know. Their window of opportunity may have passed them by. Let's hope not.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
My opinion is that is a much better thread title

and I would like to hear any new music (album or a couple of more songs) which my favorite long lasting band would like to make for me... or you... or her... or something

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
My opinion is that is a much better thread title

Quote
Rockman
My opinion is that is a much better thread title .........YES

Quote
Gazza

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Excellent comments. Now, this is the kind of discussion I enjoy.

I agree with most everything you have said here, but I think you might consider giving the Stones "target audience" a little more credit. For example: I know some "high roller" Stones fans that travel the world to see them and know more than I could ever know about the band. They fly "under the radar" and have no desire to exchange opinions about their favorite band on forums such as this. They are also not the most vocal people in the world at concerts, but they love their Stones.

Oh, dont get me wrong. I know plenty of those people too (and some of them are on these forums)...and they're bigger and more enthusiastic fans that you or I am in many cases - and its not just because their financial situation allows them to live out their fantasy. More power to them. Its not a case of reverse snobbery. The Stones have enthusiastic fans from all walks of life. I'm generalising a bit admittedly in my previous comment - but when you target an audience demographic based on wealth, you're going to get a higher % than usual of the audience who are, for want of a better expression 'event junkies' or 'box tickers'. They're also going to be generally significantly older.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

As far as the Stones "playing it safe" I am in total agreement with you. Mick's greatest fear is that his audience is going to fall asleep on him. His goal is to "kill" the audience every time out. Filling the shows with the "Blockbusters" is a proven model for accomplishing that goal.

I personally find it a bit strange that someone who we're told endlessly is the greatest front man in the world and who is the singer of what is supposedly the greatest rock n roll band in the world is, 50 years into a performing career, evidently so insecure in front of an audience that he's on record as not wanting to do more than one ballad per show or hardly any non-warhorses in case the audience in question loses interest and heads for the concession stands. Either he's no longer the performer hes given credit for or his audience has for the most part become a bit shit. One or the other.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
To his credit he does like to mix in a few rarities for us hardcore types.

No he doesnt! Its like pulling teeth. You're lucky if you get two minor surprises per show in the 17-18 or so songs Mick sings every night. If you get any rarities at a Stones show, its largely down to Chuck Leavell pestering him successfully.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
Out Of Control was definitely for us, so was 2000 Light Years From Home.

2000 LYFH has been played once since 1990? Out of Control got, what, a couple of airings on the last tour? (I personally think 2000 Light Years was a nod to the flower power era which is still symbolic of playing Glastonbury. Nothing more).

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
I thought he looked very uncomfortable doing Out Of Control. I think they only did it once. He may have felt he was losing the audience. I loved it, but thought he could have put more into it (expression wise) like he did on the Bridges tour.

It was the highlight of the BTB shows and then after that tour its hardly been played since. The thing was that the BTB tour was the last tour the Stones did when they were a bonafide current act playing new material at shows which were universally affordable. They played OOC at the first o2 show last year which I was at and it went down Ok as I recall. But it wasnt the showstopper that it was in 1998. Different era. Different audience. Different band.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

I think what they did in this past tour (considering it was their 50th anniversary tour) was OK. Many new fans got to see them perform their greatest hits for the first time. Now, it's time to give us and the new fans some new music. It's time to move on and create some new "Blockbusters". Will it happen? I honestly don't know. Their window of opportunity may have passed them by. Let's hope not.

Broadly agree. It was never going to be anything more than a victory lap from the outset and they pulled it off in that respect (better than I expected them to, actually). I dont think they have the desire to be creative (because its much easier and profitable to be lazy an stick to the formula of the last decade) and I'm not convinced that even if it was the muse is there. Regardless of whether they are creative again or not, one thing I would like to see before its too late is for them to re-claim their own music as a sizeable chunk of it, as far as the Stones in 2013 are concerned, may as well not have ever existed.

Quote
lem motlow
the stones are a business-there was a time when i didnt like it when fans would say this,my answer was always "well they're doing the same thing they always did,so the motivation doesnt matter"

but when it comes to making a record the motivation does matter.

theres no money in it.why bother working on the thing,mick and keith putting up with each other,spending the time and effort when it just gets compared to your former better work and doesnt sell.

as far as mick not singing new or different songs onstage,its the same thing.why bother? something different might not go down as well live so just work up the ones you know and go out there.

this isnt some artistic endeaver,it's get in and get out as quickly as possible and get paid as much as you can while you're doing it.

i'm sure they enjoy their job,but its still just a paying job.